Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?

["Elmar K. Bins" <]

jorgen@localhost (Jørgen Hovland) wrote:

> >Certainly not - why should one be satisfied with such a pseudo-solution?
> 
> Because that’s what everybody else are doing? That’s why we currently have
> 600 routes in dfz and not one per server on the internet?
> Should DNS be excused only because the protocol itself supports a finite
> amount of IP addresses?

Should SPs be forbidden valid, redundant, Tier-whatever independent,
autonomous solutions because we don't want an arbitrary number (prefixes
in the DFZ) to change? As much as I don't like a big DFZ, as much I'm
obliged to let the service provider decide on how they want to conduct
business.


> >Only if you limit your thoughts to a very small world. Sorry, but
> >the fallacy of your argument is so obvious that the words fail me here.
> 
> Could you be more specific? I am sure there are ISPs that are not willing to
> sell anycast services, but if you have buyers then the sellers will always
> show up eventually.

I'll try to be a bit more specific. I think about those big ISPs and how
they are present in some regions, but not in others - tough luck if you
chose them - should have chosen another, so renumber your ccTLD server.

I think of this big ISP not peering with regional ISPs, Tier-3+ etc.; well,
you should have chosen a Tier-2 or -3 then. But again, they are not present,
where you need it.

I think of connecting directly to regional communities at IXes.

I think of delivering special services to special target audiences.

I can think of some more things, all of which can be solved by making a
compromise here and there. But everything taken together, (a) the
compromises you have to make don't make a coherent picture (some cancel
each other out) and (b) there's maybe still things left over you cannot
cover.



> > No. You have shown that _you_ don't need that. 
> 
> Obviously some people have different needs. It is good that we try to figure
> those out.

I'm still not sure why we are talking about how businesses should provide
their services here - it's not our concern, really. We are not the judges
of other people's decisions (sometimes I'd like to, yeah...).


> > You try to decide here how
> > other people run their services. 
> 
> No, I am trying to prevent excessive defragmentation of the routing table.

I can see what you're trying to do, and that is a good thing in itself. It
nonetheless needs tampering with other people's decisions, and that's
nothing you can do freely. And that's why I'm saying that you're trying
to take over the service provider's engineering and operations departments.


> I
> am trying to prevent a special case of PI where you are not even required to
> have your own network. The requirement to this special PI case is so low
> that anyone would be able to apply for it - and anyone _will_ apply for it.

Well, in the least, anycasting a service costs money (setup aside, operations
costs money, too, transit line cost money, etc). So it is pretty unlikely
"anyone" would apply for it. Well, maybe anyone, but not everyone.

But you're trying to lure us away from the proposal we're discussing which
states a special case of DNS for _ccTLDs_, which some people may consider
Internet infrastructure (I mentioned this in my previous email). So back
to the topic - I have no problem with _all_ ccTLDs and gTLDs applying for
five prefixes each.


> The packet size thing is a general design problem. As far as I know, there
> are currently two methods to solve it:
> 
> * EDNS0
> * TC flag

Which are fine for any non-TLD provider to presume. TLD operators need
to find a way to service all the folks, even those with broken resolvers.


> > >  Traditionally these things were called monopolies. Nothing I would be
> > >  too happy to see coming back ;-)
> >
> > You did not comment on this part. Why?
> 
> I was probably just a bit unclear. "All you need to do is to create a
> network and ask for address space.." There is no monopoly threat as long as
> you follow the requirements. If the requirements are too strict, then it
> would become a problem. Currently, I think they are not.

The requirements for v6 space in the RIPE region includes having transit
customers (at all, the 200 is just an arbitrary number). No ccTLD registry
that's not also conducting other business may receive an allocation. That's
the entire point of the special case being made. ccTLDs cannot deliver
services in v6 like in v4. This - IMHO - is a v6 showstopper.

Yours,
	Elmar.

--

"Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu substituieren."
                          (PLemken, bu6o7e$e6v0p$2@localhost)

--------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE ]---